I'm not a big believer in "states' rights" in any sense of the term. If the sovereignty of states is derived from the autonomy and the right of self-determination of their citizens, it seems to me that, for a state to lay claim to this "moral personhood," it is a necessary condition that it respect those rights of its citizens. Mr. Assad's regime, which has been responding to its citizens' demands for increased self-determination by shelling, bombing, and possibly gassing civilian areas (thereby depriving those citizens of their right to self-determination in the most final manner) does not meet that condition.
I'm not saying that means its a good idea for the US to charge into the fray, but I do think Kant didn't adequately think his idea through.

An attack on Syria with military force without the authorization of the UNSC is both illegal and an attack on the authority and integrity of the UNSC. So such an attack is destructive to world peace as the great powers would end up in military conflicts which the veto system of the UNSC was designed to prevent.

Moreover, since the use of chemical weapons in Syria or anywhere else is a war crime, it is a matter that should be dealt by the appropriate International Authority, and not by illegal military actions of self-interested nation states. This is a certain road to widespread conflicts and wars and to the killing and maiming of many more millions of innocent civilians.

as often as not, if there is a choice between war and peace, the economist goes for war. but these hacks always fail to see the difference between striking keys and striking countries. if you are so much worried about people, why don't you go and fight for their rights on the ground?!

Kant's understanding of the pragmatics of statecraft was limited.
His gravesite is now a minor Russian tourist attraction.
Should we even imagine that President Obama has actually read Kant, or for that matter, Thucydides?

Hi,I dont agree with the author of this blog,an article which propagates war and military action.
Everyone knows what United States is,it is the only country in the world to have ever used atomic bombs,that too twice.
Remember weapons of mass destruction dossier,which was i think leaked to WSJ, and then they published the story in support of the weapons found to galvanize public opinion in US for action against Iraqi Regime,when there was nothing to be found in Iraq.Look what is happening now in Irag,and United states has left the country.So frankly I think there is no high moral ground which US can ever take.
Infact, there is no evidence that Syrian regime has used Chemical weapons.Infact, couple of months back there was an allegation against the regime,which eventually was dismissed even by UN observer, though US and Britain contiued to harp that the weapon usage was done by govt forces,later i think it became evident it was done in by rebels. Please suggest why really US is doing all this.http://rahul-project-lifespan.blogspot.in/http://historytalkiez.com/

As long as you use Kant for a source of moral authority, don't forget while the man said morals cuts the Gordian knot when politics and morals are in conflict, he also said, "For peace to reign on Earth, humans must evolve into new beings who have learned to see the whole first."

Nobody cares what Barack Obama says, or Kant, the power to declare war belongs to Congress and Congress alone. Without support from Americans and our duly elected representatives, his sounding and thundering signifies nothing.

They gave those powers up to the president by proxy. The US hasn't officially declared war since 1941, because the UN charter nominally made it "illegal" (to this day, declaring war on anybody is grounds for expulsion from the chamber). Everything since then has been a "military action" that isn't necessarily related to war. Congress didn't quite realize this power was slipping away from it as a partial consequence of their semantic sleight of hand.

Hey Pomp, Nobody cares what Barack Obama says, especially Vladimir Putin, who backs Assad. I don't know what Obama thinks he can accomplish in Syria a week before the G-20 Summit in St. Petersburg, and I'm fairly certain Congress won't declare war when it reconvenes in a few weeks.

"The rights of men must, therefore, be regarded
as holy, however great may be the sacrifice which the
maintenance of them lays upon the ruling power.

We cannot divide right into halves, or devise a modified condition of right intermediate between justice and
utility.

Rather must all politics bow the knee before
the principle of right; but in doing so it may well cherish
the hope that it will yet attain, however slowly, to that
stage of progress at which it will shine forth with
lasting splendor."

I think it really boils down to one thing at this point - we said there'd be a price to pay if chemical weapons were used, and now we have to put up or shut up. If we do nothing, then we might as well get out of the foreign policy business and let the world do as it will... I suspect we won't be doing that so someone's gettin' bombed.

There is no question that we have the capability to significantly add to the chaos in Syria. Whether that will result in any improvement in the political situation there is questionable. I also suspect that any feelings of moral rectitude we might gain from taking military action will be short lived, about as short lived as the support Obama is likely to receive from Congressional Republicans no matter what course he chooses to take.

Personally, I feel uncomfortable with any attempt to support the rebellion.

As far as I see it, Assad's government is a liberal, secular and pro-Western force in Syria. In the 10 years before the civil war, Bashar Al-Assad voluntarily withdrew from Lebanon, privatized a third of state owned businesses (and universities), switched the first second language to English (and invested heavily in English language education) and negotiated a free trade agreement with the EU & Turkey (which didn't go into effect because of the rebellion). Under Bashar Al-Assad, the Syrian people (including women, Christians, atheists & homosexuals) were free.

But the rebels will destroy (and will destroy these millions of lives) this if we help them win.

Where the jihadist rebels indoctrinate tens of thousands of child-soldiers and send them with guns, grenades and suicide bombs into market squares, public offices and checkpoints:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHK61Re_5SE

... Bashar Al-Assad's government practices gender equality (without conscription) - both men and women over the age of 18 can voluntarily enrol.

Yet there is good reason that by all polls, the majority of Syrians still support Assad's government (with obvious exceptions like the Kurdish parts of the country). Why intervene to cause yet more bloodshed and destruction?

Unless there is a path to stability, democracy, human rights, economic freedom and a guaranteed rejection of Islamist repression, how can more killing help?

Once upon a time we might have considered Assad pro-Western, secular, and liberal. Then he started ordering his military to shoot his own citizens when they demanded reform, and drew himself into an increasingly ethno-religious power base, and now is working only for his own survival. You can't pick and choose.

Also, "by all polls"? The last poll in Syria was held over a year ago. There are no polls in Syria, only speculation.

All sides have committed obscene atrocities. If you seek to exclude anybody associated with war crimes from forming a future Syrian government, then you'll need to (somehow) put the Turks or (younger) Lebanese in charge.

Most rebel factions have committed worse atrocities than the Syrian government itself. E.g. child soldiers, beheading of prisoners, pissing on corpses, rape, etc. And the dominant jihadist factions (among the rebels) have as their prime objective, the imposition of fundamentalist religious government (i.e. oppression of the Syrian people).

Assad was bad for Syria in many ways, but openly states his duties as including safeguarding the personal liberty & religious freedom of all Syrians. That is precious.

It is hard to see any outcome for Syria that could be better than a restoration of the secular government it had before the present civil war.

I don't understand how you can consider a murderous dictator who inherited the job from his father who had it by coup 40 years ago a liberal leader. Both Assads kept power by force, phony elections did not give legitimacy.

You also called him secular. He governs by and for the benefit of his own minority religious group, the Alawis [علوية‎ a branch of Shia Islam]. The Majority of Syrians are Sunni Muslims who have been oppressed politically and religiously for decades.

Their peaceful protests were responded to by increasingly brutal repression, especially from the Alawite militia, the Shabiha [شبيحة], who have engaged in ethnic cleansing of others from their regional strongholds.

You also fail to note that Syria has been a satrapy of Russia [aka USSR] for decades and has a Russian naval base. Pro-West indeed!

Thus, you seem to be calling a totalitarian dictator supported by Russia/USSR, who is ruling in the interest of his own, minority, religion and clan a liberal, secular pro-West leader. How can you even begin to justify that?

Not sure how Kant adds to the deliberations except to lend an air of moral authority without quoting a religious source. You might as well have quoted the pope or the Dalai Lama. But hey, whichever altar you wish to worship at is fine with me if you end up in the same place.

I'll leave the logistical analysis up to those in the know. I don't trust even a University of Michigan history professor to know much about the science of chemical weapons, surgical strike capabilities, or the whereabouts of Assad's forces. But if it can be done, it certainly should be. You don't get to slaughter civilians with impunity, especially after having been warned in no uncertain terms.

I'll bet soon the posts will about the feebleness of an "armed intervention" intended to send a "signal" about the use of chemical weapons without actually tipping the balance of the struggle. In other words, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts there won't be a sustained bombing campaign or anything else that would hand the advantage over to the various rebels while at the same time infuriating Russia and its allies while spurring Iran to do more to help. And of course, at the same time, we're trying to engage Iran about nuclear weapons, a goal we can toss out the window if we destroy their only Shiite allied country's "rulers".

The only solution to this is some kind of reconciliation process. The majority of Syrians (especially in Damascus and the south) do back the Syrian government; but there is regional polarization (e.g. the Kurds want to break free).

Where there has been a single gas attack (possibly a rogue military unit - we don't know) killing around 3,000 people, Jihadi rebels have indoctrinated and recruited tens of thousands of child soldiers, with children blowing themselves up on a daily basis.

A narrow focus on "gas" would be to the detriment of human interests, stability and any possibility for political reconciliation. Whatever the red lines and past atrocities (and there are far too many), all sides are eventually going to have to negotiate - just as in Lebanon or Afghanistan, Assad's government (and the secular and middle class interests backing it, not to mention the general fear of Islamist authoritarianism) has too much popular support to simply be swept away.

And yet, I can imagine every style of intervention from a no-fly zone to a systematic knock out of all heavy armour, artillery & telecommunications, to a series of regime decapitation strikes (drones & missiles) to a full scale Turkish invasion (Erdogan needs to distract his voters from domestic stuff; the well equipped Iraqi army might help out).

None of that would be in the interests of resolving the conflict. And none of that would support the Western interests of stability, economic development and social liberation in Syria (if we wanted that, we'd be backing Assad).

If by "back the Syrian government" you mean "are not visibly opposing the Syrian government," then quite possibly a majority does so. But those aren't really the same, are they?
.
A case can be made that the members of the Alawite minority support the government. And the rest of the population can be divided into those who oppose the government (at least as many), and those who don't care especially, but just want life to return to being relatively peaceful. The latter would also probably like life to also be without pervasive secret police . . . but realistically see no great chance of that, no matter who wins.

The potential fallout from allowing red lines to be crossed with impunity (see: Iran, nuclear program of) is a significant pragmatic concern. It may be the most important reason for US military intervention in Syria.

The Syrian President is NOT living in a cave.
He is the central economic, military and political leader of a nation the size of Iraq. He is connected. Make appearances. boost soldier morale. Command generals. Court political support. Make speeches. Meets UN delegations. Make decisions about crop production and oil deals.

He leaves a slimy trail that is easy to follow.
____________________________

Syrian fighter jet pilots do not fly at night. Instrument flying is too technical and dangerous.

Predators fly principally at night. In all weather. In all seasons. 24/7.

The Americans should begin with bombing runways and wiping out Syrian jets and helicopters on the ground with a night time strike by cruise missiles. Eliminate Syrian air power.

Then allow armed predators to patrol and survey Syrian skies first at night then 24/7.

Allow them to rampage Syrian army logistic lines deep in enemy territory, destroying planes and helicopters on the ground. And then attacking army tanks and material.

And all the while hunt for Bashar and take him out--if not the first night, then eventually.
A drones with smart missiles can lead a war with low risk and low cost.

As someone who actually has some experience with military aviation, I should probably mention that the predator is also slower than the average jeep, carries about as much firepower as the average infantry soldier, and has lag/latency issues that would make a world of warcraft addict throw his computer out the window...

Also, the predator is not stealthy, and if you listen to people who know what they're talking about, the risk with airstrikes is primarily from surface to air missiles, not fighter jets. Barring some (alleged) Israeli cyber activity, those SAMs actually are armed and ready at night/in all weather/in all seasons- unlike the predator (any cessna pilot should be able to give you a rough idea what conditions will keep a predator-sized aircraft grounded...)

You might want to read a bit about Syria's air defenses and the relative capabilities of US drones. Even Syria's older systems (SA-2 and SA-6) can handle subsonic non-maneuvering targets like an MQ-9. Syria's most recent S-300 (aka SA-10) system has been proven, as much as one can in a joint military exercise without live fire, to be effective against current generation western non-stealth aircraft. Syria's primary problems will be how well-trained the crews are and running out of missiles before the west runs out of targets.